[Scott Dorsey]

None wrote:
thickskullocks @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Semantics.
I told you - no "semantics", only ENGLISH.

1. You're not the moderator. You don't get to tell others what to
post. It makes no difference what you told anybody. Have you forgotten
that already, since the last time you were reminded? It was only this
morning.

Part of the problem is that this is basically a mathematical definition
that people are arguing over. Verbal english descriptions are only going
to be approximate analogies; the actual definition is a numerical function.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 16-10-2015 14:47, Scott Dorsey wrote:

None wrote:

thickskullocks @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Semantics.
I told you - no "semantics", only ENGLISH.

1. You're not the moderator. You don't get to tell others what to
post. It makes no difference what you told anybody. Have you forgotten
that already, since the last time you were reminded? It was only this
morning.

Part of the problem is that this is basically a mathematical definition

We may be doomed. If they can't see a curve in space like ordinary
people when reading the formula, then they may perhaps never get it.

But at least we now know what it is that is preventing their
understanding. The only thing more dangerous that illiteracy, illmatheracy.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

that people are arguing over. Verbal english descriptions are only going
to be approximate analogies; the actual definition is a numerical function.

--scott

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen: "ilmatheracy"

Or as I have read, "innumeracy". I cannot
perform even basic math, not because I didn't
want to, but simply because no teacher could
teach it to me.

Others have serious problems grasping basic
grammar. Still others, understanding cause
& effect.

We are all blessed with different talents,
Peter, and sometimes we have challenges
learning others. But no one deserves to
be bullied, ridiculed, or shut out because of
that.

How would a certain bully feel if it were turned
on THEM?

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 16-10-2015 17:33, wrote:

Peter Larsen: "ilmatheracy"

Or as I have read, "innumeracy". I cannot
perform even basic math, not because I didn't
want to, but simply because no teacher could
teach it to me.

Others have serious problems grasping basic
grammar. Still others, understanding cause
& effect.

We are all blessed with different talents,
Peter, and sometimes we have challenges
learning others.

Yes. I agree 100 percent. Also please note that I don't give a dam'
about who posts what, I comment on the content and I occasionally devote
quite some effort in getting things understood.

But no one deserves to
be bullied, ridiculed, or shut out because of
that.

Yes, I agree 100 percent.

How would a certain bully feel if it were turned
on THEM?

Which is what is happening here since you want to wear the shoe. I
didn't put it on you. It was not you that was at the forefront of my
mind in typing.

Your dragging a dead horse around is just that towards the audio
professionals in this forum. You are very strong on average loudness
level opinions and not so strong on actual audio recording.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen wrote: "not so strong on actual audio recording."

Average loudness is not an opinion, it is fact that
finished product has gotten louder in the last 20
years. At least I have come to grips with what/who
is driving it.


But please elaborate on that second part - about
audio recording.

[John Williamson]

On 16/10/2015 19:14, wrote:
Peter Larsen wrote: "not so strong on actual audio recording."

Average loudness is not an opinion, it is fact that
finished product has gotten louder in the last 20
years. At least I have come to grips with what/who
is driving it.

So you have finally realised that the loudness wars are driven by the
listeners, not by the engineers. Good.

But please elaborate on that second part - about
audio recording.

Just about every post you make demonstrates your total lack of
comprehension of the basics of audio recording as well as your ignorance
about the aims of and the techniques used in the modern audio production
process.

Your posts in this thread show your inability to tell the difference
between a waveform, the amplitude envelope of that waveform and a
graphical description of how the gain of an amplifier inside a
synthesiser varies, even after many repeated attempts to explain it to
you in simple terms.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "So you have finally realised that the loudness wars are driven by the listeners, not by the engineers. Good. "

WRONG.

They are driven by the artists, producers,
and labels. If I ever met a listener who said "I wish
this song/record was louder", I'd grab them by the
arm and place their hand on the volume control.
(then I might offer to drive them to an eye doctor to
have their vision checked!)

As far as recording goes, I record my church worship
team every Sunday. I have an analog mixer and a
digital audio recorder, and I know exactly what the
meters on each are telling me. At the same time
I make sure each participant has enough monitor
to hear themself, and that I'm not blasting out the
house.

They trust me enough to know what I'm doing.

[John Williamson]

On 16/10/2015 20:05, wrote:
John Williamson wrote: "So you have finally realised that the loudness wars are driven by the listeners, not by the engineers. Good. "

WRONG.

They are driven by the artists, producers,
and labels.

AKA the people who listen to and pay for the recordings.

If I ever met a listener who said "I wish
this song/record was louder", I'd grab them by the
arm and place their hand on the volume control.
(then I might offer to drive them to an eye doctor to
have their vision checked!)

If you speak to someone who listens to recordings in a quite location
such as their living room or a dedicated living room, I'd agree with
you. However, most popular music has, for a few decades now, been
"listened to" in places with a high background noise level such as a car
or a location full of noisy people dancing. In these places, it is
desirable to decrease the ratio between the quietest and loudest parts,
so that the quiet parts are audible above the background noise, and the
loud parts do not cause damage to either the listeners' hearing or the
reproduction equipment. It is not practicable to force the end user to
install a compressor on their player, so the compression has to be done
elsewhere in the chain, and the easiest place to do it is during the
mastering process, so that the sound is not drastically altered by
compression added at the transmitter. This will inevitably have the
effect of increasing the average loudness of the music.

As far as recording goes, I record my church worship
team every Sunday. I have an analog mixer and a
digital audio recorder, and I know exactly what the
meters on each are telling me. At the same time
I make sure each participant has enough monitor
to hear themself, and that I'm not blasting out the
house.

And with this great experience, you still don't know the difference
between the waveform of a sound and the envelope of that waveform.

They trust me enough to know what I'm doing.

I've given the conductor of a full symphony orchestra a copy of a
recording showing a full dynamic range as performed under his
leadership, peaking at -0.5 dB, and his response was "It's too quiet."
He expected to hear some compression on the recording.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson wrote:

I've given the conductor of a full symphony orchestra a copy of a
recording showing a full dynamic range as performed under his
leadership, peaking at -0.5 dB, and his response was "It's too quiet."
He expected to hear some compression on the recording.

I get that too... and I suggest turning it up. Sometimes there is no
way around it, but you'd be surprised how many people like it after
they try it.

It's also true, though, that a little peak limiting can help you bring
those levels up a good bit without restricting the dynamics or sacrificing
any sound quality. You can bring the horn peaks on that crescendo down closer
to the average orchestral level without actually changing perceived loudness
much at all, but it allows you to then bring all the levels up a bit across
the board.... no perceived dynamic range lost. Mind you if there is a lot
of tympani going on, this won't help you so much.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Friday, October 16, 2015 at 5:12:39 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

I've given the conductor of a full symphony orchestra a copy of a
recording showing a full dynamic range as performed under his
leadership, peaking at -0.5 dB, and his response was "It's too quiet."
He expected to hear some compression on the recording.

I get that too... and I suggest turning it up. Sometimes there is no
way around it, but you'd be surprised how many people like it after
they try it.

It's also true, though, that a little peak limiting can help you bring
those levels up a good bit without restricting the dynamics or sacrificing
any sound quality. You can bring the horn peaks on that crescendo down closer
to the average orchestral level without actually changing perceived loudness
much at all, but it allows you to then bring all the levels up a bit across
the board.... no perceived dynamic range lost. Mind you if there is a lot
of tympani going on, this won't help you so much.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

I would go ahead and clip (yes clip) non musical sounds such as hand claps or an occasional lound beat, and I stick one of these logos and the link on the recording.

http://turnmeup.org/

Mark

[None]

thikskull @ dumb****shortbus.edu wrote in message
news:34487d6f-9549-4cc6-8568
I cannot perform even basic math, not because I didn't want to, but
simply because no teacher could teach it to me.

Blame the teachers, as you always do. Did you throw tantrums and argue
with them? Did you insist that they were wrong, and two plus two
didn't equal four; that you knew better? Did you accuse them of having
a vested economic interest in two plus two? No wonder they gave you a
"mercy diploma" to get rid of you after seven years at a two-year
junior college!

By the way, the surest way to get me to insult you is for you to
mention me in a post. I know this won't help you, because you will
have forgotten it moments after you read it.

I know exactly what the meters on each are telling me.

Based on everything you've posted, that statement is a huge stinking
pile of bull****. You have no idea what the meters are telling you.
You've gone to great effort to prove that.

They trust me enough to know what I'm doing.

Yeah, their standards are about as low as they get. FCABFGAT?

[geoff]

On 17/10/2015 2:47 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
None wrote:
thickskullocks @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
geoff wrote: "- show quoted text -
Semantics.
I told you - no "semantics", only ENGLISH.

1. You're not the moderator. You don't get to tell others what to
post. It makes no difference what you told anybody. Have you forgotten
that already, since the last time you were reminded? It was only this
morning.

Part of the problem is that this is basically a mathematical definition
that people are arguing over. Verbal english descriptions are only going
to be approximate analogies; the actual definition is a numerical function.
--scott



Disagree to a point. Mathematical in nature, but aural in importance,
and most easily and conveniently observed visually (for those of us
operating in this century with more than a teletype screen !)...

geoff

[geoff]

On 17/10/2015 7:39 a.m., John Williamson wrote:


Just about every post you make demonstrates your total lack of
comprehension of the basics of audio recording as well as your ignorance
about the aims of and the techniques used in the modern audio production
process.

Your posts in this thread show your inability to tell the difference
between a waveform, the amplitude envelope of that waveform and a
graphical description of how the gain of an amplifier inside a
synthesiser varies, even after many repeated attempts to explain it to
you in simple terms.


The maths teachers apparently had a similar problem.

geoff

[[email protected]]

geoff wrote: "The maths teachers apparently had a similar problem"

You know what geoff - and John W, et al?

If you were in the same boat I was, cognitively,
I'd show you something not one of you has
shown me: A little COMPASSION.

Thank you!

[[email protected]]

John Williamson wrote: "AKA the people who listen to and pay for the recordings. "

WRONG again!

The artists, labels and such are the ones
MAKING and MARKETING the music,
NOT buying it.

And the amount of compression used in
the 1970s and '80s was sufficient and served
the purposes you described, not like today
where they remove any hint of transients
or swell of a chorus.

[None]

thickmama @gmail.com wrote in message
...
geoff wrote: "The maths teachers apparently had a similar problem"

You know what geoff - and John W, et al?

You know what, ThickSkull?

I'd show you something not one of you has
shown me: A little COMPASSION.

You have not shown the group compassion. You have treated the readers
of the group with contempt, even those few who remain polite to you.
Nobody on this newsgroup is at fault for your inability to comprehend
anything. Stop blaming everyone else. It's pathetic.

Thank you!

**** you, asshole. YFSBDF.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 17-10-2015 00:49, wrote:

John Williamson wrote: "AKA the people who listen to and pay for the recordings. "

WRONG again!

The artists, labels and such are the ones
MAKING and MARKETING the music,
NOT buying it.

And the amount of compression used in
the 1970s and '80s was sufficient and served
the purposes you described,

No. It is only the digitally deployed multiband compressor that has
allowed imperceptible compression of natural recordings. It is with
audio dynamics as with image dynamics, to make it sound or look right,
with all details available it is required to fit the dynamics to what
the equipment and playback situation allows.

not like today
where they remove any hint of transients
or swell of a chorus.

Blanket statement that does not now allow for technical and musical
genre, also what you are describing is limiting. Some of the time
limiting is a good thing, because it allows deploying processing only
for the actual duration of the problem.

If the use of a compressor is audible, then it is also incorrect unless
used as an artistic effect. So called parallel compression is often
preferred by live sound engineers because it does a good job of raising
low levels without doing anything about/to the peaks.

Also please note that transients are not just the loud stuff. It is very
often the noise components of instrument sound, such rattle from guitar
strings and the squeak of left hand fingers on the strings and all those
fascinating noises that paper makes. One of the problems in deploying
compression is to avoid that such become unnaturally audible.

Example of natural recording multiband compressed for the medium:

https://soundcloud.com/jexper-holmen/ravnholm

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

snip

I am so glad I read that. Thank you for sharing your invaluable views
with the assembled group.

Please subscribe me to your newsletter.

--
Les Cargill

[John Williamson]

On 16/10/2015 22:12, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

I've given the conductor of a full symphony orchestra a copy of a
recording showing a full dynamic range as performed under his
leadership, peaking at -0.5 dB, and his response was "It's too quiet."
He expected to hear some compression on the recording.

I get that too... and I suggest turning it up. Sometimes there is no
way around it, but you'd be surprised how many people like it after
they try it.

It's not a problem for me, and some gain automation in post can work
well enough, just losing a touch of the purity I was aiming for.

It's also true, though, that a little peak limiting can help you bring
those levels up a good bit without restricting the dynamics or sacrificing
any sound quality. You can bring the horn peaks on that crescendo down closer
to the average orchestral level without actually changing perceived loudness
much at all, but it allows you to then bring all the levels up a bit across
the board.... no perceived dynamic range lost. Mind you if there is a lot
of tympani going on, this won't help you so much.
--scott

In this case, the problem on one track was the 32 foot pipes on the
organ with all the stops out, swapping the theme with the rest of the
orchestra. On another track, I could have done with spotting the solo
sax, but wasn't allowed to by the cathedral authorities. Shrug They
got a copy of the masters to mix as they wish at the college, and it
would be good practice for a student.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 17/10/2015 00:41, wrote:
geoff wrote: "The maths teachers apparently had a similar problem"

You know what geoff - and John W, et al?

If you were in the same boat I was, cognitively,
I'd show you something not one of you has
shown me: A little COMPASSION.

Thank you!

Sometimes, true compassion includes trying to help rectify the
situation. We are trying to help you understand where you are going
wrong, while you continue insisting we are all wrong and you are right.

Try considering what we could do to help you understand the problem.
However, posting the type of stuff you post, then attacking the person
who politely points out your errors is not the way to endear yourself to
others, and can lead to sarcasm.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 16/10/2015 23:16, geoff wrote:
On 17/10/2015 2:47 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:

Part of the problem is that this is basically a mathematical definition
that people are arguing over. Verbal english descriptions are only going
to be approximate analogies; the actual definition is a numerical
function.
--scott



Disagree to a point. Mathematical in nature, but aural in importance,
and most easily and conveniently observed visually (for those of us
operating in this century with more than a teletype screen !)...

However, to get the best out of the visual representation, it helps a
lot if the basic principles underlying the image are well understood,
and it is used only as an aid to understanding the aural component.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 16-10-2015 19:14, wrote:

Peter Larsen wrote: "not so strong on actual audio recording."

Average loudness is not an opinion, it is fact that
finished product has gotten louder in the last 20
years. At least I have come to grips with what/who
is driving it.

The race for loudness is not new. It was probable Stereophile that
documented it quite carefully by comparing calorimetrically determined
average to peak ratio on records and on FM stations in the second half
of the 1970-ties. Once upon a time, probably 1999, I posted additional
documentation of it on something called usenet. If you find the thread
DO take care to read it to the end, most of the data in it are 3 dB off
due to a software oddity as explained in a late post in it.

But please elaborate on that second part - about
audio recording.

You say that you do church audio. Acoustic instrumenets or amplified
average us church rockband? - derogation intentional, but not aimed at
you

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen wrote: "Blanket statement that does not now allow for technical and musical genre"


I guess I should specify Pop/Top 40. And it is very likely
both compressed and peak limited before regaining back
to full scale. Very fatiguing to listen to, compared to the
top 40 of perhaps 35 years ago.


Even though some of you may not officially recognize the
TT DR(Dynamic Range) meters(static and real-time) as
official production aids, but a modern pop song's DR value
of "7", compared to a DR12 to 14 is telling. It might be
measuring crest-factor, or even something else - but the
lower resulting value on more recent material is telling,
and confirms what I have been told to listen for.

In any case, I can hear the 1977 Linda Ronstadt in my
car as plainly - and more pleasantly - than the 2014
Ariana Grande, just by turning it up a notch. And no,
I'm not afraid of the older more dynamic piece "shredding"
my car speakers(!). And my Best of Chic CD REALLY
gets other drivers' attention at a stop light in warmer
weather - when all our windows are open. Avg. DR is
15!!

[[email protected]]

Peter Larsen: "You say that you do church audio. Acoustic instrumenets or amplified "


Amplified. Most evangelical or born-again use "rock". And yes, I
use the Yamaha mixer's built in compress knobs to allow
the worship vocalists to cut through the music a little, as well
as to even out our Pastor. LOL, In a 12x24m sanctuary, 6m
cathedral ceiling, with proper system gain structure throughout,
most of my faders ride between -5 to -10dBVU(analog board),
feeding Mackie powered 15's set at default 12 o'clock volume
position.


I just crank up the monitor outs to the Tascam digital
recorder, and make sure I don't peak above -6 full scale.
I can bring things up(reasonably!) later in post.

[[email protected]]

Peter Laraen wrote: "Example of natural recording multiband compressed for the medium: "

Excellent! The chords remind me a bit of my hero - Zappa!

Listening carefully, on fullsized system and through good
cans, I can just hear the effects of the multi-band. The
sustains on the piano are just a tad more present than
they would be if listening in person - but some of that
could also be room. Changes in overall loudness are
preserved - and startling when heard for the first time!

Big-label producers: lend Peter your ears!!

[[email protected]]

Probably started with AM radio in the 60s. WABC
Anybody remember WWRL I think it was at 1600 on the dial in NYC.
They must have been running 40dB of comp. When the announcer took a breath, you could hear every little sound and hum in the studio.
Mark

[[email protected]]

wrote:
Probably started with AM radio in the 60s. WABC
Anybody remember WWRL I think it was at 1600 on the dial in NYC.
They must have been running 40dB of comp. When the announcer took a breath, you could hear every little sound and hum in the studio.
Mark "


Wow! Even a toilet flushing down the hallway, or someone farting
in the sales pool?

[Angus Kerr]

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 4:31:08 AM UTC+2, Peter Larsen wrote:
Also please note that transients are not just the loud stuff. It is very
often the noise components of instrument sound, such rattle from guitar
strings and the squeak of left hand fingers on the strings and all those
fascinating noises that paper makes. One of the problems in deploying
compression is to avoid that such become unnaturally audible.

Example of natural recording multiband compressed for the medium:

https://soundcloud.com/jexper-holmen/ravnholm


Afraid I find the content so fatiguing, I can't concentrate the effects of the multiband compressor. Although I can perceive a reduction in dynamic range that is quite subtle and smooth.


Typical modern classical music. Sends shivers down my spine in not a good way.

But kudos Peter

Nice recording

-Angus.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 18-10-2015 09:45, Angus Kerr wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2015 at 4:31:08 AM UTC+2, Peter Larsen wrote:

Also please note that transients are not just the loud stuff. It is very
often the noise components of instrument sound, such rattle from guitar
strings and the squeak of left hand fingers on the strings and all those
fascinating noises that paper makes. One of the problems in deploying
compression is to avoid that such become unnaturally audible.

Example of natural recording multiband compressed for the medium:

https://soundcloud.com/jexper-holmen/ravnholm

Afraid I find the content so fatiguing, I can't concentrate the effects of the multiband compressor. Although I can perceive a reduction in dynamic range that is quite subtle and smooth.

I had not expected to use earplugs when recording a chamber quartet, but
did.

Typical modern classical music. Sends shivers down my spine in not a good way.

But kudos Peter

Nice recording

[bowing] thank you!

-Angus.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Angus Kerr]

On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 7:11:36 PM UTC+2, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 18-10-2015 09:45, Angus Kerr wrote:

-snip-
Afraid I find the content so fatiguing, I can't concentrate the effects of the multiband compressor. Although I can perceive a reduction in dynamic range that is quite subtle and smooth.

I had not expected to use earplugs when recording a chamber quartet, but
did.

Lol. I often wonder what is the point of this dissonance-on-purpose type of music. It seems almost set up to create maximum offense. I mean, surely we should be now post-modern where a clever melody of some sort can exist with dissonance and shocking backing or whatever. But having some across some composition professors they are about as whacko as you can get. I suppose you have to push the boundaries. I remember doing theory exams where you are given a melody to do 4 part harmonies to or whatever, and thinking to myself, "god this melody sucks, why bother to do harmonies to it?"

Also makes me laugh, because in the late seventies and early eighties when John Williams was talking about his Star Wars soundtrack, he said there was a lot of resistance and rebellion in the LSO regarding his 'dissonant and unmusical' soundtrack. They should get a load of your group's recording!


Typical modern classical music. Sends shivers down my spine in not a good way.

But kudos Peter

Nice recording

[bowing] thank you!

-Angus.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

-Angus.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Angus Kerr wrote:
On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 7:11:36 PM UTC+2, Peter Larsen wrote:
On 18-10-2015 09:45, Angus Kerr wrote:

-snip-
Afraid I find the content so fatiguing, I can't concentrate the
effects of the multiband compressor. Although I can perceive a
reduction in dynamic range that is quite subtle and smooth.

I had not expected to use earplugs when recording a chamber
quartet, but did.

Lol. I often wonder what is the point of this dissonance-on-purpose
type of music. It seems almost set up to create maximum offense. I
mean, surely we should be now post-modern where a clever melody of
some sort can exist with dissonance and shocking backing or whatever.

"Rite of Spring" was first performed in 1913.

But having some across some composition professors they are about as
whacko as you can get. I suppose you have to push the boundaries. I
remember doing theory exams where you are given a melody to do 4 part
harmonies to or whatever, and thinking to myself, "god this melody
sucks, why bother to do harmonies to it?"

Also makes me laugh, because in the late seventies and early eighties
when John Williams was talking about his Star Wars soundtrack, he
said there was a lot of resistance and rebellion in the LSO regarding
his 'dissonant and unmusical' soundtrack. They should get a load of
your group's recording!


MOAR FRENCH HORNS! MOAR! MOAR! It's like Bill Moffit "Soundpower"
arrangements.

Eaughhhh... give me Aaron Copeland or Elmer Bernstein any day.

snip
--
Les Cargill